UK PANIC?!

[stormrider_sp]

Is the UK in panic about Brazilian and Argentinian's plans to build ssn and renew their navies?

A few weeks ago, Subsim's main page was flooded with articles regarding brazilians decision to build in cooperation with France, its first SSN. But I didnt see what a friendly neutral country, who recently found a reasonable amount of fossil fuel hiding underneath its extended coast line, really deserve from allied countries. And it is not fear!

Brasil is a neutral country who sent troops only to Haiti and East Timor, not to rage war, but to guarantee security given the army's experience in such an enviroment (Favelas in Rio de Janeiro). Brasil is also still trying to have a chair in the UN "restrict"?! decision cupola.

But unfortunatly all I read was panic and fear. Defeatism because of the unresolved problem called Islas Malvinas.

Now, Argentina announced its intentions to develop its own SSN.

I would like to know how you guys feel and think about that.

Cheers

[Herr_Pete]

I wouldn't be worried. They wouldn't dare try take the Falklands again. If they did they have to try take out what can't be seen

[papa_smurf]

Not that worried.

[Skybird]

Logical step by Brazil. It is the regional dominant power, it has rich resources that othery eye with envy, and I take it since years that they are a military nuclear power, although they did a magnificient job at not pushing the global public's nose into it.

That others will follow in order to not let the gap to Brazil become too great, is to be expected. For the same reason I argue that a nuclear Iran at all cost must be prevented, for it will cause a nuclear arms race in the whole region with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt not letting it happen without reacting with their own nuclear propgrams. In South America, it is Brazil, Argentinia, Venzuela (now accounted for the world'S biggest reserves in oil, before Saudi Arabia).

The Falkland Islands, well, the Royal Navy may have decent platforms, but it is shrinking and shrinking, and Western nations find it increasingly struggling to deal with their military budgets. Back then, the Argentinians tried a quick shot from the hip, they were not too well prepared for a real war, and the British military was more powerful and potent to project combat force by means of a fleet. But for the future, I am not so sure that the Brits again could push back a South American attack if that attack is prepared by better military preparation as well as years of political preparation and tailoring of military developement.

Let'S face it, the military lead of the West was shrinking constantly over the past, and it needs bigger and bigger investement to claim smaller and smaller advances in technology, therefore resulting system are not available at the numbers they would be needed in order to cover the same terrain as before - or in order to be able to digest own losses. A fleet of thirty ships of mediocre potence can afford the sinking of three ships much easier than a fleet of eight ships with better potence. Also, European developements make it less lioekly that high own losses will be tolerated by populations - even more so when said populations have less and lesser links to the goals of a war, or maybe even oppose it from beginning on.

A new war over the Malvinas would be decided by more than just mere firepower.

[Herr-Berbunch]

The question of another Falklands/Malvinas conflict was raised here a couple of months ago, and I think the bottom line is that Argentina is not in a fiscal position nor currently has the military wherewithal to make another push, whilst the UK would not be able to run a sustained campaign there now.

Basically they could come, and we'd fight them off, but if they kept coming then we'd be buggered and it would fall for good. And I regularly have several friends down there at once - I don't relish the thought.

[stormrider_sp]

The 1982 Malvinas War was a military bluff by a desperate dictatorship military government. I've lived in Argentina for about 2 years. Even if the argentinians and mosta south americans (except for Chile ofcourse) claim Islas Malvinas to be Argentinian, at the same time, they're ashamed of what happened and know it was a mistake to start a conflict and pay it in blood, specially over small, cold and deserted islands.

A conflict in my opinion is the most unlikely scenario. The diplomatic pressure tho should increase considerably specially backed by a new world order with new powers emerging, and old empires struggling and as said in previous posts, shrinking.

[Oberon]

Not that bothered.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

But unfortunatly all I read was panic and fear. Defeatism because of the unresolved problem called Islas Malvinas.

Correction - Falkland Islands.

And the problem was resolved.

Clearly the people who live there don't want to be argentinian, otherwise they would have chosen to be so before now.

Equally as clear it would be an undignified return to being a second rate military junta (and all that implies in the eyes of the world) to attempt another invasion.

Those things aside, I'm not concerned by it, though I'm sure others are.

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by jumpy

Correction - Falkland Islands.

And the problem was resolved.

Clearly the people who live there don't want to be argentinian, otherwise they would have chosen to be so before now.

Equally as clear it would be an undignified return to being a second rate military junta (and all that implies in the eyes of the world) to attempt another invasion.

Please, no political bias here. But thanks for answering.

[Herr_Pete]

Yes I would like everyone to take note that the islands are called The Falkland Islands. Not the Malvinas!!!!!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

The question of another Falklands/Malvinas conflict was raised here a couple of months ago, and I think the bottom line is that Argentina is not in a fiscal position nor currently has the military wherewithal to make another push, whilst the UK would not be able to run a sustained campaign there now.

Basically they could come, and we'd fight them off, but if they kept coming then we'd be buggered and it would fall for good.

Agreed....and not overly worried at all.

The Falklands have become more important of late because of the natural resources discovered in the area.

[BossMark]

Originally Posted by Herr_Pete

Yes I would like everyone to take note that the islands are called The Falkland Islands. Not the Malvinas!!!!!

Correct, the only decent thing that cow thatcher did was retake these islands(or should I say gave the order to retake The Falklands)

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by BossMark

Correct, the only decent thing that cow thatcher did was retake these islands(or should I say gave the order to retake The Falklands)

Why? Is there any other reason than pride?
And btw, the first settlers named the islands Îles Malouines, in 1764.

Please moderators, would you close this thread before it turns out to be a political flamming?

[TLAM Strike]

I just read an article that said Argentina wants to take that submarine they never finished the ARA Santa Fe and stick a nuclear reactor in to its hull.

Well since the TR1700 class submarines are only about 2,000 tons that reactor better be natural circulation and/or have a turbo electric drive otherwise it will be the nosiest thing running. 2,000 tons does not allow for much in the way of conventional quieting features.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Agreed....and not overly worried at all.

The Falklands have become more important of late because of the natural resources discovered in the area.

I was just about to ask this. According to Wikipedia, there's a population of just over 3000 on the islands, with an annual GDP of $75 milion USD. I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that. But if there's resources there, that makes more sense.